Colorado marijuana law and the definition of “public” (2 letters)

Thanks to Vincent Carroll for encouraging a discussion about “public” use of pot. The new legislation now must be tested, and editorial dialogue is a good forum. I think Carroll is wrong, however, about his thoughts on a nightclub or Costo being public venues. While it’s true they are “open to the public” and they rely on public patronage, they are private venues located on private property. Even the food court of your nearest mall — while seemingly a public space — is owned and operated privately. Examples of public venues include streets, sidewalks, parks, squares, schools, libraries, government buildings, and other areas built, owned and operated with public monies.

Unfortunately, in the United States for the last six decades city planning and urban design has been so poor that private spaces of commerce have largely replaced genuine public spaces. Our vernacular and cultural understanding of what is private and what is public reflect this shift.

Scott McCarey, Boulder

This letter was published in the Jan. 19 edition.

Vincent Carroll’s column about the legality of smoking pot in private bars or clubs is wrong, legally.

When people voted “yes” on Amendment 64, they were voting for pot to be regulated and treated like alcohol. So why is Carroll now saying that the voters only meant for people to consume pot hiding out in their own homes? That is not how we treat alcohol. We don’t consume alcohol only in our homes; we allow it to be consumed in bars and private clubs.

Treat pot like alcohol: that was what Amendment 64 was all about. Did we already forget that?

Ryan Foliano, Denver

This letter was published in the Jan. 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“We don’t consume alcohol only in our homes; we allow it to be consumed in bars and private clubs.” — Ryan Foliano

And in restaurants, sports stadia, amusement parks, at festivals such as the People’s Fair, 4th of July celebrations, etc. Is that what Mr. Foliano really wants for pot?
Treating pot like alcohol was a campaign slogan. How pot is really treated is spelled out (I hope reasonably clearly) in Amendment 64. Legislators now get to put the concepts of Amendment 64 into statutes.
So, I hope Mr. Foliano isn’t disappointed if he goes to his favorite restaurant and isn’t handed an infused pot product list along with the wine list.

Dano2

When people voted “yes” on Amendment 64, they were voting for pot to
be regulated and treated like alcohol. So why is Carroll now saying that
the voters only meant for people to consume pot hiding out in their own
homes? …Treat pot like alcohol: that was what Amendment 64 was all about. Did we already forget that?

Remember: pot is for dirty hippies, not respectable people. That is likely how the statutes will play out, because the people in power will write the statues.

Best,

D

primafacie

“When people voted “yes” on Amendment 64, they were voting for pot to be regulated and treated like alcohol.”

===

Mr. Foliano and others may have thought that’s what they were voting for, but as Mr. Carroll noted in his column, that isn’t the case. And note it was the city of Lafayette, not Mr. Carroll, doing the enforcing in this case.

Any place that can ban cigarette smoking should be allowed to ban pot smoking. It means that pot smoking would be restricted to homes, private clubs, and private vehicles.

mrfxx

You don’t seem to realize that basically, every city in Colorado has banned smoking in public places – the only places that one can smoke legally today are: one’s home (although a condo owner in Jeffco was banished to smoking in a courtyard because a neighbor – who was new to the subdivision sued and the judge found in the plaintiff’s favor); in one’s vehicle (although some rabid anti-smokers have proposed banning that if anyone else is in the vehicle), a few “cigar bars” (not sure how many of those are left) – and on some streets/sidewalks (I believe Boulder has banned smoking “in public” – as some cities in California have). Bars and restaurants – even those which which spent tens of thousands of dollars putting in separate ventilation systems for smoking and non-smoking sections were forced to end all indoor smoking – and some cities have even banned smoking on patios areas – and ALL of them banned “private smoking clubs”! I’m betting that if “private pot clubs” are allowed, those smoking “regular” cigarettes are going to revolt!

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.